Gaul

[The Wandering Scholar]

what a blitzer eh?

[Good Ship Chuckle]

You shoud know me by now. Of course it was a blitzer.

[Vitellus]

As Gaul, I don't know if there is any other way TO play successfully. You have to act swiftly to eliminate one rival before the others all around you grow powerful enough to pose a threat. For me, it was the Romans, and their swift elimination meant I never had any trouble in Italy (before the damned Hellenic intervention), and the funds from the Italian cities allowed me to hold off the barbarian attacks in the north and the Punics/Iberians in Hispania long enough to gain a decisive advantage. GSC was even more successful, managing a non-aggression pact with Germania that allowed him to eliminate the Britons and secure his rear early on.

[gollum]

Indeed as Gaul, urgent action is required. Basically throwing everything at the Romans and taking them out before they get an Imperial palace (God forbids!).

I remember in the last gaul vanilla campaign i've played there were about 20 sites of "famous battles" scattered all over the Italian pen. - Obelix would have been proud :)

[Alrik]

Ok, I'm tackling this the second time through now. Both been on VH campaign and M battles.
I agree that as Gaul you have to be agressive and fast, you have a huge reign and plenty of borders, but no income. It is a priority thus to Stabalize your situation. what I did was barge north with everything in Alesia and kick the Britts into oblivion, this for two reasons, the first time around I had taken their mainland foothold, but had been required to station a huge garison there for most of the game, something that the gauls really can't afford. Killing the Britts thus leaves your back clear and you can have one army less, it also gives you access to a lot of coast and thus ports, giving you much needed income. So what I did this time, was not even taking a breather, but insantly jumping to Londinium and taking the battle there as a result I killed the last brit general by turn four leaving their last settlement to rebel.

similarly in the south, people say Gaul's territory is divided in two and that it's essential to unify it, but that's only half right, it's actually divided in three. Numantia is left totally surrounded and I read here people advising to garison it properly, again costly and again an army that does nothing, but sitt there waiting for the inevitable, I mean seriously you are in the smack middle of Spain's domain, what's he supposed to do? Ignore you? Don't think so, Empty Numantia and charge Osca, this will relieve the threat on Narbo Martius, if you challange Julii early on both these cities will then be left safe, the Carthinians have too many borders to guard to launch assaults all the way up here.
Continue the assult on Spain, Spain starts small and weak, use that, the sooner you exterminate him the easier time you will have, the issue here is Carthage, but he usually take a few turns to warm up, just like the Germans, before they do you should have Spain and Brittania well on their way to oblivion. With two fronts less you have less forces to waste your money on and ALL of the new territories are costal, which gives you what Gaul needs most, money.
Both times I left Julii alone, because I know he will attack, but it's easier to fight a defansive battle and he stats with a sizable army. While waiting for that I sent the forces around Narbo Martius to take Massilla and Lugdunum before going north to reinforce my German border.
The troops in northern Itally I sent to take the rebel settlements. Mediolanium north to take luvalum, then south again to handle Julii while the city spawns new toops to handle the Roman threat. Patavium going east to take Segestica and Aquincum.

Aquincum here is essential, taking it and walling it up quickly and placing a small garrison of four - five units will halt Dacia, who may linger for a while in your territory, but not attack unless you lessen the garrison, this is great and makes them go to war on the other front.

When Julii begins to move (it will only take a few turns) don't hesitate, just smash the bastard. The Senate might have a big army but it will just sit on the boarder and watch, there's no need to engage them if you don't want to. and if you do, make sure it's a bridge/ford battle. The Brutii though will eventually come up the eastern side of the Itallian pernisulae, they will also come north on the other side of the coast. I took Salona and have been keeping them busy in sieges there. He will at times send ships up as well, but unless one of the armies are allowed to march, then he troops on the boats wont come ashore.

After killing the Brits, Spain and julii, in that order I concentrated on Germany and pushing into North Africa, while getting my cities in Italy on their way to producing foresters. I did the same with Alesia, but by the time I managed to produce the first unit 256 BC My armies pushing east were sieging Lovosice and marching on Vicus Gothi, meaning there was a very long way to the front, so I'm not sure producing the units there was such a good investment.
After finishing up with the germans I with a somewhat strengthened garrison in Aquincum made a simultanious assult on most of Dacias settlements, which meant I killed him off in a couple of turns without having to face all of his forces, which proved lucky because my armies were apparently obsolete by this time, facing chosen archers and such isn't fun with first tier troops. Which made me consider waiting there before taking on Scythia, especially seeing as both Campus Lazyges and Porrolissum are big developed cities, which means you can produce good troops there.
However Scythia apparently didn't like to wait so that I could get forresters to tackle their horrible horse archers and moved in immidiatly and sieged Porrolissum, which now faces three nearly full stacks of Scythian troops. That's where I'm at, taken Rome in Italy, pushing with huge forester armies and slaughtering everything there (apparently I could build awesome temple of the Horse in Rome, so I'm doing that, Gold version of the game, no mods)
Have nearly taken out Numidia in the south, but now Carthage is moving huge stacks into the southern desert. (I'm having trouble making the damn cities there happy, which put a serious dent in my progress.) Trying to gather the rebel killing foresters in Spain and France to make a semi-force to take out Malta and head on to help out in North Africa.
Now is actually the first time I faced any real difficulty, first time I played the Imperial campaign with the Gauls, money was the problem, now getting real troops to the front is it., but then again 43 regions by 250 BC, is ok, with Gauls, right? It's probably about time I stopped blitzing.

[hlemmur]

An word of advice if you r playng the gauls.
2)ever played with egypt and tested those Pharaoh"s bowmens??no?what about against them?you did?and they were like super-wariors?gues what gaul has Forester Warband.Almost better.Develop a town quick so you can mass them early.

+1 Forester Warbands are good; Forester Warbands with 6 or more levels of experience are lethal - both at range and in melee; that's why I would recommend going after Albion as soon as you have connected your lands, partially to get some strategic depth, partially because they will stab you in the back anyway, but mainly to get those Forester Warbands plenty of experience fighting troops that are no better than yours

[wugui]

After many years i reinstalled RTW and decided to play as the Gauls. I only play VH/VH.

Havent finished yet but doing well so far. Exterminated Britania, juli and senate. Germania down to 2 towns and currently laying seige to both Bruti settlements in Italy. Its 252 bc. Havent used forresters and elite swords yet, only barb cav and swords.

In the first turns produced diplomats on all three fronts and got alliances with Germania, Spain, Carthago, Bruti and senate. Sold trade rights and map information to all except juli and Germania. Later in the game used diplomats to prevent wars by simply buying off any foreign army on my lands before they could declare war on me. With the Alesia army blitzed Britania and exterminated them. Narbo Martius army unified the country taking the two rebel settlements. Mediolanum and Patavium built for swords and cav (including temple and blacksmith). Stationed the Patavium army on the bridge. After getting three full stack armies mainly of swords and barb cav blitzed juli. With one stack sieged rome on the river passage tile. Defeated the senate army on this bridge battle. Most settlemenst i chose to occupy but the more far away ones, including rome i sacked.

Dont know but it seems the trick to win as Gauls is diplomacy, to prevent 3 front wars.

[Ludens]

Welcome (back?) to the .Org, Wugui . Sounds like you are having a fun game.

[Vincent Butler]

Is Numantia worth keeping, or should taking Spain be a priority. Obviously taking Italy is so you can eliminate Rome before Marius, and then spring into lucrative Greece. If you are astute in a battle, even Warband can be used against British Chariots. Forester Warband are awesome, too bad it takes so long to get to them. Warhounds will do well against Britannia or Germania, but not so much against Rome. Swordsmen should be the core of your army, with a Druid to help. It seems that swordsmen beat spearmen (excluding phalanx) in hand to hand combat. Just personal observation, definitely so on walls. Most elite units are swordsmen, only Rome and Carthage have good non-phalanx spear units (Auxilia, Triarii, and Libyan Spearmen are nothing to sneeze at). Naked Fanatics provide good shock infantry, and I believe are the same temple as Druids (Esus), though I could be wrong. Also, temple to Abnoba gives gold upgrade to missile weapons. Gaul's main problem is money, which taking Italy and Greece will solve.

These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time. 2 Samuel 23:8 KJV

[ReluctantSamurai]

Is Numantia worth keeping, or should taking Spain be a priority.

Depends on where you locate your capital I generally don't jump into N. Africa as Gaul...Italy becomes the primary target after Spain is conquered.

so you can eliminate Rome before Marius

If you are referring to the S.P.Q.R., then taking the city has no bearing on when Uncle Marius shows up...at least in my experience. I've taken the city with a Royal Palace intact (more than once) but no Marian Reforms had occurred. It's usually Carthage that drives the Reforms, and occasionally one of the Greek cities like Athens.

Never recruited a Druid unit, and can't see me ever doing so. Their stats are weak, the 32 man unit is too small, and I honestly don't see their benefits being better than 'War Cry'

Gaul's main problem is money, which taking Italy and Greece will solve.

Yep. But don't overlook the financial benefits of Spain....every province can have a port, and there's one or two mines to be had, as well.....

[Vincent Butler]

Yep. But don't overlook the financial benefits of Spain....every province can have a port, and there's one or two mines to be had, as well.....

Agreed. I think that was why I had to abandon my latest Briton campaign, when I should have gone after Italy and Spain, I went after Italy and Germania, suspending my war with Gaul so it was one less thing to worry about. Really, as a Barbarian, if you take over anything city or larger, it is a good idea to kill population growth right off the bat, you can't advance the city anyway. And is enslaving a totally different culture better or exterminating? I know the exterminating is good financially for the looting, but the city will take a while to recover. Just looking for advice on that, can probably apply it to my Greek campaign as well. As barbarians, the exterminating seems inviting because it is hard to make money, but that may not be the best choice.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Really, as a Barbarian, if you take over anything city or larger, it is a good idea to kill population growth right off the bat, you can't advance the city anyway. And is enslaving a totally different culture better or exterminating?

I play Germania alot, and the economic scenario is much the same. Germania has a legitimate "growth" temple in Freyja (so it's rare to need to enslave), and 12k rather than 24k is the maximum development level, so I generally exterminate to generate cash from looting, and to prevent tieing down my armies to garrison duty. With the added time cushion from exterminating, I can bring even potentially large cities like Corduba or Massilia under control with ZPG strategy. But if a city is close to the 12k mark, it's better to just capture it intact if you can. You may have to put up with several turns of riots, but eventually things will calm down and the final level of the governors building can be built.

The Greek Cities is a different kind of campaign with a different approach to economic development. You are dealing with large incomes (and expenditures), potentially very high population counts, and the need for a strong navy (as Germania, I build a very small fleet to cut off Britannia from the mainland, and not much else). So extermination is a less viable alternative in most instances.

[williamsiddell]

But if a city is close to the 12k mark, it's better to just capture it intact if you can. You may have to put up with several turns of riots

Because riots reduce population, in a case like above I'd immediately find a way to take the population over 12k (disbands or enslaves) so I can start the governor's building - and then allow riots if unavoidable.

[Vincent Butler]

12k rather than 24k is the maximum development level, so I generally exterminate to generate cash from looting

12K is the max? Upgrade to Large Town is 2000, upgrade to City is 6000, right? Barbarians can't do Large City, which goes at 12K. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that 6000 is the max upgrade for barbarians, though I could be mistaken.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that 6000 is the max upgrade for barbarians, though I could be mistaken

No, you are not mistaken....my bad I guess the 12k sticks in my head because that's about where I achieve ZPG with most barbarian settlements.

[williamsiddell]

By barbarian I presume you mean Britons and Germans. How dare you call britons barbarians?

[ReluctantSamurai]

How dare you call britons barbarians?

Brits and the donkey carts they call chariots...

[williamsiddell]

I'll have you know the Brits didn't have donkeys til the Romans brought them. What did the Romans ever do for us, eh?

[Vincent Butler]

Taking heads as trophies sounds barbarian to me. Talk about Barbarian, the Bible mentions that there is neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian nor Scythian. There is barbarian, ie non-Greek, and then there is Scythian, really barbarian. Celts as a whole were barbarian. I am glad my ancestors were not barbarians, the Vikings.

[williamsiddell]

Taking heads as trophies sounds barbarian to me.

Well that's where you're wrong. Throwing heads - now that's barbarian :)

Scythian, really barbarian

If you had to wear a hat like like that, wouldn't you be in a permanent bad mood?

Celts as a whole were barbarian

I'm a Celt and I'm only mildly barbarian. Vincent the Red.

[Vincent Butler]

Well that's where you're wrong. Throwing heads - now that's barbarian :)

Pardon me. I guess something needs to be done with the heads, like putting them on a pike. That is civilized.

If you had to wear a hat like like that, wouldn't you be in a permanent bad mood?

I think it was more as much time as they spent on horseback. Ouch.

I'm a Celt and I'm only mildly barbarian. Vincent the Red.

Hey now, my brother is the red one. We have the Celts to thank in part for soap, don't we? Anyway, we came over to England with William the Conqueror, and rubbed shoulders with the monarchs after that. If the name Fitzwalter means anything to you, our line of Butlers descend directly from the Fitzwalters.

[williamsiddell]

Ha ha.

like putting them on a pike

That's where the guy who invented lollipops (or whatever Americans call them) got the idea.

We have the Celts to thank in part for soap

I've heard of soap but never use it.

Fitzwalter sounds like an Irish name. Vincent Bloodaxe.

[Vincent Butler]

Butler the Berserker. Fitzwalter means "Son of Walter", and the most famous of the Fitzwalters was probably Lady Marian Fitzwalter of Robin Hood lore. And we seem to have strayed from topic. Anyway, as Gaul (or Britannia), I used to fight most of my battles in the city, but I am thinking maybe that gives especially Rome an advantage, their units beat barbarians from the front, and they cannot be flanked in town. That is what you really want to do, flank them, so taking the battles out of the city might be better. At least in barbarian towns, you don't get the help of the walls decimating them either. I imagine if you take a city with stone walls, you can fight in city better, you can meet them on the walls instead of the ground, and your towers do more damage. As Germania, it probably still works in the city because of the phalanx.

[williamsiddell]

Here I go being mechanical again. I no longer fight at the walls in a city - I fortify the town centre (units may be permanently wavering but never rout). That means even if I lose I take more with me :) I'm not sure Gaul has a really good defensive unit though. Do they have wardogs? They come into their own in a city.

[Vincent Butler]

Do they have wardogs? They come into their own in a city.

As a phalanx I do not fight at the walls, as Rome I do, sometimes, it depends on a lot of variables. Large Roman/Greek city I always fight at the town center, letting my walls do most of the damage. Egyptian walls and cities stink for defense: Eastern/Egyptian gates cannot even fire inward. If there are Onagers present or more than one Siege Tower I defend at the town square.

I fortify the town centre

Town centre-takes me back to Age of Empires.

Do they have wardogs?

Yes, I am pretty sure Gaul does have Wardogs, but Wardogs are useless against armoured units, and even worse against phalanx. Even standard swordsmen do fairly well against them, at least if that is all they are fighting. They do well against Warband, Peasants, Screeching Women, and such like, not so much against chariots, only good against Cataphracts for the humor of watching what Cataphracts do to them, not great against cav as a whole.

[williamsiddell]

I am pretty sure Gaul does have Wardogs

Aye, in the field wardogs usually rout before the units they're supposed to scare.
But I remember assaulting a town, and wardogs charged out the newly opened gate and my ram unit just ran away :) Also in my current game I had two solid hoplite units properly arrayed for defence set up in the enemy town square. They were attacked by 3 wardog units. As far as I could tell the wardogs were permanently wavering, but it was the hoplites that eventually ran.

But the real problem is when it comes to auto-resolve of a siege. I don't think I've ever won an auto-resolve where the garrison includes wardogs.

[ReluctantSamurai]

only good against Cataphracts for the humor of watching what Cataphracts do to them

Yep.....splat!

[Vincent Butler]

Aye, in the field wardogs usually rout before the units they're supposed to scare.
But I remember assaulting a town, and wardogs charged out the newly opened gate and my ram unit just ran away :) Also in my current game I had two solid hoplite units properly arrayed for defence set up in the enemy town square. They were attacked by 3 wardog units. As far as I could tell the wardogs were permanently wavering, but it was the hoplites that eventually ran.

But the real problem is when it comes to auto-resolve of a siege. I don't think I've ever won an auto-resolve where the garrison includes wardogs.

I have seen the ram unit rout in that situation, but it was against Britannia and Germania, so Warband and Spear Warband not in phalanx. I have never seen properly defensed phalanx lose to dogs, the dogs just impale themselves on the spears. Sometimes a dog or two will not die, same as happens with enemy units, just either turn the phalanx off guard mode or raise then immediately lower the spears.

[williamsiddell]

I have never seen properly defensed phalanx lose to dogs

Well I have! I didn't mess about with the formation - they just killed dogs (until the hoplites eventually ran). It's because enemy units don't rout on the town square.

[williamsiddell]

OK - you've forced me to think back. I'd taken Croton, Tarentum and Capua on the mainland so it must have been one of those three. I think it was the Tarentum siege mentioned elsewhere.

Early on I never have a large army - in this case 2 generals, 4 hoplites, a militia hoplite and a battered archer (all from Sicily). Inside the city was the faction leader, 2 hastati and 3 dogs.

I took some heavy losses early but destroyed the hastati then I did what I like to do if possible - I lure the enemy general to chase my general. So while they were playing hare and hound round the outskirts of the city I moved my 2 remaining hoplites up to the town square with the other general. When I got there one dog unit must have been heading after my general and the other 2 were at the opposite corner. I was able to line up my phalanx inside the town square with the general behind before the 2 dogs attacked and the third appeared at the far side.

They were all in action while I went to see how my general was doing elsewhere. When I came back the hoplites had bolted. I diverted my general to the square and attacked and defeated what was left of the dogs with my two generals before the enemy general appeared. It was touch and go but I won with not much of my army left :)